Well, you can say "What -- specifically -- did I write that was inaccurate? Don't use the sub-headline -- use what I actually wrote in the body." But just because you demand that he not mention the sub-headline, doesn't mean that he's not allowed to. The sub-headline reads: "Britain convicts Terrorists entirely within the law; the NYT claims that's proof that law-breaking is necessary." Neither the NYT nor Mackey claimed this. I agree with all of your other criticisms of his post (in particular, the implicit position revealed by his choice of question at the end), but he's got you stone cold on the sub-headline -- it's inaccurate. The "NYT" didn't claim it, a reporter did; it wasn't a claim, it was implied; and it wasn't implied that the story was proof of necessity, only that it may help justify law-breaking. Nor is this error trivial: headlines and sub-headlines aren't just additional matter tacked on, any more than his question at the end of his post was just innocent matter tacked on. The sub-headline makes a factually false accusation, and deserves to be changed, just as his original post was.

Mmm, journalistic condescension and copyright fanaticism -- two great tastes that taste great together.

Experts who read blogs or newspapers regularly and carefully of course should not have been surprised at Obama's ongoing "centrism." But millions of people not just voted for Obama, but donated to him, based on little more information than what they picked up from his campaign, speeches, and occasionally glimpsed TV coverage. That's just an empirical fact. Perhaps we can blame them for being ill-informed, but most didn't really have the information to know they were ill-informed, nor any idea how to get more informed -- nor did the care very much. But millions of them, if they had to cite one word to describe Obama, would choose "change." (Check the NES survey when it comes out, or other ones with open-ended questions, to confirm this.) So those millions who thought Obama promised change but have paid enough attention now to see that this was at best a gross exaggeration, are a bit disappointed. True, they could have discovered otherwise during the campaign as we high-information voters did -- but it shouldn't be surprising to us that there are millions of "change" voters who are now, and will continue to be, very disappointed. And even though I myself knew better, I can't say I blame them.